S T P I
October 20, 2006
Memorandum
TO: Dr. Walter Schaffer, NIH/OD
FROM: Christina Viola Srivastava and Oren Grad, STPI
SUBJECT: Key points noted during MPI post-review teleconference for NCI RFA CA-07-004, “Small Animal Imaging Resource Program”, October 17, 2006
· About half of those who expressed an opinion in this group declared themselves to be supportive of the concept, and most of this support was qualified (e.g. “I support the concept but only if used judiciously”). A few reviewers were opposed to the concept on principle (one commented that “it’s like having 2 presidents or 2 mayors”), while others expressed mixed feelings.
· Frequently cited reasons for support included sharing of credit and encouraging multidisciplinary research, although one reviewer urged the others to remember that credit-sharing is a local problem for which local solutions might be most appropriate.
· Concerns cited included a lack of clarity as to the difference between “multiple PIs” and “co-PIs”, a feeling that a single person must ultimately be held responsible for the award from an administrative standpoint, and concerns about level of effort and “top-heaviness” from a cost perspective.
· Many offered opinions on when the multi-PI option would be most appropriate:
o Several reviewers pointed to the good fit for multi-disciplinary proposals, particularly those that paired an imaging scientist with a cancer biologist. Others asserted that proposals involving PIs with significant overlap in their skills was an inappropriate use of the MPI mechanism.
o A few reviewers mentioned proposals with a junior-senior PI combination, which they found less compelling (one expressed concerns about “a weak PI shopping for a trophy wife”).
o Most reviewers seemed to feel that the number of possible PIs should be capped at 3, arguing that any more would be unmanageable or would result in excessive personnel budgets due to level of effort issues. Several mentioned reviewing applications with as many as 5 proposed PIs, which they seemed to regard as untenable.
o Some reviewers believed that the multi-PI option should only be available for certain mechanisms (e.g. center grants), with several expressing doubt that it could ever be appropriate for an R01. Others argued that the mechanism was not necessarily inappropriate in the R01 context and that the merits of each proposed use of the MPI mechanism should be judged independently.
o A few mentioned that the multi-PI option might be especially appropriate in cases where there were multiple institutions involved.
· Many reviewers felt that the concept of “multiple PIs” needed clarification in the RFA, perhaps with examples of appropriate and inappropriate use. Several also mentioned uncertainty surrounding the role of the “contact PI”, who might be perceived as “first among equals.”
· Many reviewers emphasized the importance of the leadership plan, urging that it be a separate section of the application and that it define both specific roles for each PI and plans for conflict resolution. A few reviewers observed that they had encountered applications that were deficient in this respect, with plans suggesting that “everyone would do everything.” One reviewer suggested interim review of the leadership plans to verify that the multiple PIs were actually functioning as proposed.
· Several reviewers suggested that the adequacy of the leadership plan and justification for the multi-PI option should be explicitly incorporated as part of the review criteria. But one reviewer expressed ambivalence about this, arguing that the scientific merit of the proposal ought to be weighted much more heavily than the ability of the PIs to describe their management plans.
· Several reviewers explicitly stated that they did not believe the inclusion of the multi-PI option affected the review process one way or the other. None of the reviewers explicitlty disagreed, although comments such as the criticisms of the leadership plans described above suggest that some applications were not viewed favorably because their leadership plans were deficient.
NCI RFA CA-07-004 Multi-PI Review Call 1